maybeagnostic wrote:I think the situation in those countries is sort of the inverse of what Erdogan is doing now. If you go back a decade or even just a week Turkey had free press, independent judiciary, an army that obeyed the elected President but weren't his cronies, an education system that allowed the expression and exchange of ideas. [...]

The free press has been under a lot of pressure for a while now. Maybe a decade ago Turkey had one, but it's freedom was already severely limited before the coup. Also the army has a history of not obeying the president. It's not too long ago, 1997, that they forced out a government despite the president defending it.

maybeagnostic wrote:I think the situation in those countries is sort of the inverse of what Erdogan is doing now. If you go back a decade or even just a week Turkey had free press, independent judiciary, an army that obeyed the elected President but weren't his cronies, an education system that allowed the expression and exchange of ideas. [...]

The free press has been under a lot of pressure for a while now. Maybe a decade ago Turkey had one, but it's freedom was already severely limited before the coup. Also the army has a history of not obeying the president. It's not too long ago, 1997, that they forced out a government despite the president defending it.

The free press has been under attack in Turkey since AKP came to power in 2002-ish. Even more so since the protests in 2013. But, this was arranged by these same people who have now had their power solidified by the coup attempt.

This is part of the reason I don't like AKP, not to mention their shady way of doing things, their policies (especially post 2013), and Erdogan himself.

elasto wrote:At the risk of crossing the streams, Trump once again demonstrates he loves a strong leader no matter how anti-democratic:

Asked about the failed coup in Turkey on Friday, the Republican candidate praised Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has been criticised by some Western leaders over his increasingly authoritarian rule.

"I give great credit to him for being able to turn that around," Mr Trump said of the failed coup. "Some people say that it was staged, you know that," he said. "I don't think so."

US Secretary of State John Kerry has urged Mr Erdogan to follow the rule of law, amid a crackdown on opposition figures by the Turkish leader in the wake of the coup attempt. But Mr Trump chose not to make a similar statement.

"When the world sees how bad the United States is and we start talking about civil liberties, I don't think we are a very good messenger," he said.

Obama made his support for Erdogan clear so it's not like Trump is some devious outlier.

Not to mention that as Hillary was Obama's Secretary of State, Hillary was the living embodiment of Obama's foreign policy.

elasto wrote:At the risk of crossing the streams, Trump once again demonstrates he loves a strong leader no matter how anti-democratic:

Asked about the failed coup in Turkey on Friday, the Republican candidate praised Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has been criticised by some Western leaders over his increasingly authoritarian rule.

"I give great credit to him for being able to turn that around," Mr Trump said of the failed coup. "Some people say that it was staged, you know that," he said. "I don't think so."

US Secretary of State John Kerry has urged Mr Erdogan to follow the rule of law, amid a crackdown on opposition figures by the Turkish leader in the wake of the coup attempt. But Mr Trump chose not to make a similar statement.

"When the world sees how bad the United States is and we start talking about civil liberties, I don't think we are a very good messenger," he said.

Obama made his support for Erdogan clear so it's not like Trump is some devious outlier.

Not to mention that as Hillary was Obama's Secretary of State, Hillary was the living embodiment of Obama's foreign policy.

Which is why I find it laughable when douchebags like Bill Maher try to deflect the disaster that was Libya as if it wasn't just a repeat of Iraq and Afghanistan by Democrats.

Hell, Obama trying to meddle with Syria and try to depose Assad just so that the country could become another Egypt/Libya was beyond obnoxious. How many failed states before these people learn to gtfo .

Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

Lucrece wrote:Which is why I find it laughable when douchebags like Bill Maher try to deflect the disaster that was Libya as if it wasn't just a repeat of Iraq and Afghanistan by Democrats.Hell, Obama trying to meddle with Syria and try to depose Assad just so that the country could become another Egypt/Libya was beyond obnoxious. How many failed states before these people learn to gtfo .

I find it laughable how you used Syria as an example of meddling when it's really an example of the dangers of isolationism/nonintervention that you just espoused. Syria is a dumpster fire/shining example of what happens when you ignore a crisis but you lumped it in the intervention bucket. How many failed states before you learn that you can't escape problems by ignoring them?

Lucrece wrote:Which is why I find it laughable when douchebags like Bill Maher try to deflect the disaster that was Libya as if it wasn't just a repeat of Iraq and Afghanistan by Democrats.Hell, Obama trying to meddle with Syria and try to depose Assad just so that the country could become another Egypt/Libya was beyond obnoxious. How many failed states before these people learn to gtfo .

I find it laughable how you used Syria as an example of meddling when it's really an example of the dangers of isolationism/nonintervention that you just espoused. Syria is a dumpster fire/shining example of what happens when you ignore a crisis but you lumped it in the intervention bucket. How many failed states before you learn that you can't escape problems by ignoring them?

Yeah, creating a power vacuum likely to be filled by armed jihadist factions will totally solve that. No, thanks, I'll stick with Assad and I would have stuck with Saddam and Gadaffi as well.

Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

Lucrece wrote:Which is why I find it laughable when douchebags like Bill Maher try to deflect the disaster that was Libya as if it wasn't just a repeat of Iraq and Afghanistan by Democrats.Hell, Obama trying to meddle with Syria and try to depose Assad just so that the country could become another Egypt/Libya was beyond obnoxious. How many failed states before these people learn to gtfo .

I find it laughable how you used Syria as an example of meddling when it's really an example of the dangers of isolationism/nonintervention that you just espoused. Syria is a dumpster fire/shining example of what happens when you ignore a crisis but you lumped it in the intervention bucket. How many failed states before you learn that you can't escape problems by ignoring them?

Yeah, creating a power vacuum likely to be filled by armed jihadist factions will totally solve that. No, thanks, I'll stick with Assad and I would have stuck with Saddam and Gadaffi as well.

That's not what you said earlier. You were claiming that Syria is horrid example of the dangers of intervention. It's actually shows the danger of not helping. You create the same power vacuum, and then there's all the massacres, and refugee crisis that has spread to Europe. You haven't done anything except deny that a lack of action is a mistake.

PS What you are proposing with Saddam, and Assad isn't nonintervention. It's intervening, but siding with strongmen for stability. A US classic strategy that had/has worked for decades. Sorta. Not really.

Lucrece wrote:Which is why I find it laughable when douchebags like Bill Maher try to deflect the disaster that was Libya as if it wasn't just a repeat of Iraq and Afghanistan by Democrats.Hell, Obama trying to meddle with Syria and try to depose Assad just so that the country could become another Egypt/Libya was beyond obnoxious. How many failed states before these people learn to gtfo .

I find it laughable how you used Syria as an example of meddling when it's really an example of the dangers of isolationism/nonintervention that you just espoused. Syria is a dumpster fire/shining example of what happens when you ignore a crisis but you lumped it in the intervention bucket. How many failed states before you learn that you can't escape problems by ignoring them?

Yeah, creating a power vacuum likely to be filled by armed jihadist factions will totally solve that. No, thanks, I'll stick with Assad and I would have stuck with Saddam and Gadaffi as well.

That's not what you said earlier. You were claiming that Syria is horrid example of the dangers of intervention. It's actually shows the danger of not helping. You create the same power vacuum, and then there's all the massacres, and refugee crisis that has spread to Europe. You haven't done anything except deny that a lack of action is a mistake.

PS What you are proposing with Saddam, and Assad isn't nonintervention. It's intervening, but siding with strongmen for stability. A US classic strategy that had/has worked for decades. Sorta. Not really.

The massacres and financial ruin upon the country would be far worse without the "strongmen". Libya is utter chaos, Afghanistan is a complete farce, and Iraq has been the paragon of governmental incompetence.

Assad is a leaking dam full of cracks, but a dam nonetheless compared to the tide of destruction from the warring sectarian factions that would run that country into the ground.

Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

That may or may not be the case for Syria, Egypt etc. but Turkey actually did flourish as a state without a strongman, and also during the early years of Erdogan when he was not yet as radical. It's actually kinda surprising that Erdogan did turn crazy dictator when everything worked really well for him and the country without that.

Lucrece wrote:The massacres and financial ruin upon the country would be far worse without the "strongmen". Libya is utter chaos, Afghanistan is a complete farce, and Iraq has been the paragon of governmental incompetence.

Assad is a leaking dam full of cracks, but a dam nonetheless compared to the tide of destruction from the warring sectarian factions that would run that country into the ground.

Just to be clear, that doesn't mean your against intervention. It means you would've sent weapons to Assad like we did with Egypt.

lorb wrote:That may or may not be the case for Syria, Egypt etc. but Turkey actually did flourish as a state without a strongman, and also during the early years of Erdogan when he was not yet as radical. It's actually kinda surprising that Erdogan did turn crazy dictator when everything worked really well for him and the country without that.

Turkey was on a downhill slide to jihadism by pretty several polls carried there. Secularism was on its way out for a while. Look at who turned out to support Erdogan during the coup. Erdogan didn't conjure these people out of nowehere, they've been festering all along in Turkey.

Lots of people like to portray Turkey and Lebanon as fairly secular but in practice it was far from it from a social perspective. The law does not always keep up with social sentiment and communal practices.

When we say Turkey/Lebanon/UAE are modern states, we are being extremely generous with stretching that term. They just modernize in a material fashion for the upper classes, and people just see the shell of what these hell holes are :to migrants, to women, to ethnic and religious minorities, to gay people.

Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

While much of this is true Turkey is still a rather secular nation but with a clear trend toward Islamism. For example the ban on wearing any kind of religious symbol/garments inside government buildings, universities and schools is still on the books, but since 2013 rarely enforced. Anyway, even with all it's troubles Turkey before the rise of Erdogan can hardly be called a 'failed state' and it would seem it's actually closer to failing now that it's turning into a dictatorship.

Tens of thousands of people have joined a pro-democracy rally in Istanbul, condemning the nation's attempted coup.

The rally was organised by the opposition party CHP but was backed by President Recep Tayyip

...

In his speech, CHP leader Kemal Kilicdaroglu said that amid the turmoil, "the parliament stood proudly, Turkey stood proudly, MPs stood proudly, people in this square have stood proudly, and democracy won!"

But he also stressed the importance of a free press and freedom of assembly, as well as the dangers of dictatorship and authoritarianism.

He said: "The state cannot be governed by grudge, anger and prejudice. Those responsible for the coup should be tried lawfully, with the understanding of abiding by the rule of law."

In a rare move, pro-government television channels broadcast the speech live.

President Erdogan launched a widespread crackdown following the attempted coup, arresting thousands of service personnel and sacking or suspending thousands of judges, government officials, school teachers and university heads.

Human Rights group Amnesty International said it had received credible evidence of detainees being subjected to beatings and torture, including rape, since the coup attempt.

Amnesty International has gathered credible evidence that detainees in Turkey are being subjected to beatings and torture, including rape, in official and unofficial detention centres in the country. [...]Detainees are being arbitrarily held, including in informal places of detention. They have been denied access to lawyers and family members and have not been properly informed of the charges against them, undermining their right to a fair trial.[...]The interviewee also heard police officers make statements indicating that they were responsible for the beatings, and that detainees were being beaten so that “they would talk”.In general, it appears that the worst treatment in detention was reserved for higher-ranking military officers.Many of the detainees in the sports hall and other facilities were handcuffed behind their backs with plastic zip-ties and forced to kneel for hours. Interviewees reported that zip-ties were often fastened too tight and left wounds on the arms of detainees. In some cases detainees were also blindfolded throughout their detention.Lawyers described how people were brought before prosecutors for interrogation with their shirts covered in blood.

16 TV channels sounds like a considerable number, but the relevant information would be how much of total Turkish news media that actually is. Minor papers, major papers, opposition papers? I have no idea.

The Guardian wrote:Tens of thousands of supporters of the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, are to hold a rally in the German city of Cologne, as tensions over Turkey’s failed coup put authorities on edge.

Since the attempted military power grab on 15 July, Erdoğan’s government has launched a crackdown on those allegedly linked to the putsch that has seen the detention of almost 19,000 people, sparking international concern.

...

The political strife in Turkey has also found expression in Germany, which is home to the biggest Turkish diaspora. Up to 30,000 people are expected to answer a call to take to the streets on Sunday, issued by pro-Erdoğan group the Union of European-Turkish Democrats, police said. The North Rhine-Westphalia state, where Cologne is located, is home to about one-third of Germany’s 3-million-strong Turkish community.

At the same time, several smaller counter-demonstrations are to take place, including one billed “Stop Erdoğan” and another called by far-right activists, raising fears the demonstrators could clash. Security services in Germany sought to head off any potential violence between the different camps, with about 2,700 officers – including several Turkish speakers – deployed to keep the peace.

Cologne’s police chief, Jürgen Mathies, said: “One thing I want to make clear is that we will intervene against any kind of violence quickly, decisively and forcefully.”

Erdoğan enjoys a large support base among the diaspora in Germany, home to about 1.5 million people with Turkish nationality who can vote in Turkish elections. His Justice and Development party (AKP) garnered 60% of the vote in Germany in last November’s election, a bigger share than in Turkey.

...I have no idea what to think about this. Didn't know / remember Erdogan was that popular with the Turkish in Germany, nor that significant portion of the diaspora is so connected to Turkey that they actually can vote in Turkish elections.

A very significant portion of the Turkish in Germany are either former Gastarbeiter or their descendants. It's the AKP demographic. Also politics and society failed at making them part of German society. I also suspect that there is a rather big effect of In-group favoritism that turns them more nationalist and pro-Turkey than they would be if they were still in Turkey.

Turkey arrests the leaders and all 11 MPs of Kurdish parliament party HDP. BBC.

Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Whatsapp were reported to be inaccessible inside Turkey shortly after the detentions, even when users tried to circumvent restrictions using a virtual private network (VPN).

It does seem a bit odd to me though that the military would be the guardian of democracy. How does that work? Perhaps the better question is why does that continue to work?

Thanks for the correction! I never consciously realized those were different words. Huh.

Anyway, it works, or at least has worked in the past, because tradition is often much stronger than law.

Some background from The Atlantic, which I'm quoting verbatim since the link is to a live-blog so I don't know how long this text will remain on it.

News of a coup in Turkey came as a surprise to the world, but not as great a surprise as it might have been in some countries. In the second half of the 20th century, the nation fell into a pattern of semi-regular military coups, and by that rhythm, it was in fact overdue. Previous coups came in in 1960, 1971, 1980, and 1997, so that the 19-year gap between the last uprising and today was notably long.

Modern Turkey was founded by Mustafa Kemal, a general in the Turkish Army who was later formally granted the surname “Ataturk,” or father of the Turks. Ataturk set about an aggressive program of modernizing and “Westernizing” the country, pushing religion to the margins, banning certain apparel like headscarves and fezes, and converting Turkish from Arabic to Latin script. But that secularism has always remained tenuous. Many Turks, especially rural ones, are religious, and not all of the reforms have remained popular.

The military has long seen its role as safeguarding Ataturk’s secularist agenda, and when it worries the government is shifting too far away, it has tended to take action. The first coup, in 1960, was a response to two currents: Prime Minister Adnan Menderes was both making overtures to Moscow and opening up to religion, reopening shuttered mosques, allowing the call to prayer to be sung in Arabic and more. A few dozen officers launched a coup in May 1960. Menderes was executed the following year after being convicted of violating the constitution.

The military relinquished control to civilians in 1965, when Süleyman Demirel was elected. But by 1971, growing unrest had emboldened Islamists, and the military again stepped in. This time, it did not launch tanks but instead delivered an ultimatum to Demirel, demanding “the formation, within the context of democratic principles, of a strong and credible government, which will neutralize the current anarchical situation and which, inspired by Atatürk's views, will implement the reformist laws envisaged by the constitution.” Demirel resigned; the military did not directly take control.

Nine years later, amid continued instability, the military again intervened, this time seizing power and holding it for three years. There followed a period of relative political stability. But in 1997, generals decided to depose Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan, the head of an Islamist party. The military again enacted a coup by memo, forcing Erbakan’s resignation and banning him from politics.

Turkey has thus occupied a strange position in world politics: Although it is prone to coups d’etat, Western governments have often cheered the coups on, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, because they are in the service of a secular agenda. Periodic deposition of democratically leaders has, somewhat paradoxically, been treated as a small price to pay for ensuring liberalism.

Already, some analysts are shruggingly embracing the latest coup as a way to rid the country of the increasingly autocratic President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. But what is not clear yet in the latest coup is whether it fits the same pattern of secular Kemalists clamping down on Islamism. There is speculation that the coup’s leaders may in fact be loyal to Fethullah Gulen, an enigmatic Muslim leader who’s currently in exile in Pennsylvania—that’s certainly what Erdogan claimed in his FaceTime address to the nation. Gulen is a former Erdogan ally who was essential to his rise, but the men have since broken. Whether Western leaders would be as eager to embrace a Gulenist coup as a Kemalist coup is unclear, though concerns about how Turkish instability could affect the civil war in Syria might render that question irrelevant: For outsiders, any leaders—whether Gulenist or Kemalist—may be preferable to ISIS.

Remember that 'democracy' doesn't just mean 'tyranny of the majority'. Democracy also means rule of law, protection of minorities, human rights, important freedom, etc. So a military stepping in to protect core democratic values is strange, but not self-contradictory.

Such an interesting conversation.Thank you for bringing that article here in English.

eran_rathan wrote:Too bad the US military can't do that to certain areas of the US, enforcing protection of minorities and secularism.

The military may be able to bring stability, rule of law, human rights protections, and secularism to the US.That would not be the US military. Unless the US military were under direct supervision of another military.

This thread is not about the US.edit:

elasto wrote:If any check or balance gets too strong then your liberal democracy is in danger. Heck, even the free press can become too powerful - meaning unelected, often foreign media bosses hold undue influence over both politicians and the electorate...

Beautifully said, Elasto; Like in the US. (right?)

Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.Some of us see The Gutter.Some of us see The Stars.by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

elasto wrote:If any check or balance gets too strong then your liberal democracy is in danger. Heck, even the free press can become too powerful - meaning unelected, often foreign media bosses hold undue influence over both politicians and the electorate...

Beautifully said, Elasto; Like in the US. (right?)

The US is hardly unique. Look at the toxic narrative many UK papers have spewed over the last decade or so towards the EU purely for the purpose of upping circulation, without which Brexit would almost certainly not have occurred.

If every check and balance itself needs a check and balance, what should it be for the free press? My immediate thought is a parallel taxpayer-funded media that is otherwise kept at arms-length by the state, operating under the sole directive of presenting the news of the day in an unbiased and impartial manner.

The BBC is notionally that of course, but I don't think they discharge their duty of impartiality particularly intelligently: Too often they think 'giving both sides of the argument equal air time' is sufficient - whereas I think being impartial should mean 'being willing to point out bullsh*t no matter whose mouth it is coming from".

Ideally other media outlets should be a check and balance on each other, by calling out each other's bullshit. They seem to avoid that though, probably don't want to pick a fight with say the Murdoch papers and then have their editors getting harassed with paparazzi forever.

Mutex wrote:Ideally other media outlets should be a check and balance on each other, by calling out each other's bullshit. They seem to avoid that though, probably don't want to pick a fight with say the Murdoch papers and then have their editors getting harassed with paparazzi forever.

Frontline: Murdoch's ScandalProblem with Murdoch's news outlets (at least in the U.K.) is they were in tight with the government. Call out Murdoch's paper and they could act with near impunity to ruin (or "Monster") your reputation and the media outlet you work for and the government does nothing to stop them (in large part in fear of being "Monstered" themselves).

The Frontline episode is a bit old, not sure what if anything has changed since then, but it does illustrate the problem.

We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

elasto wrote:The BBC is notionally that of course, but I don't think they discharge their duty of impartiality particularly intelligently: Too often they think 'giving both sides of the argument equal air time' is sufficient - whereas I think being impartial should mean 'being willing to point out bullsh*t no matter whose mouth it is coming from".

That is not a particularly easy standard, though.

Politifact and similar sites try, but they do get it wrong, sometimes. A lot of times, political debates are about the repercussions of future actions. Like, say, if The Affordable Care Act would decrease health care pricing or increase premiums.

Some statements rated as a lie turned out to be true, and conversely. In practice, neither party is really lying as such, they're just using different economic models, some of which are less accurate for the particular prediction. Which is "obvious bullshit" mostly depends on which partisan camp you're in, and thus, which models you've accepted as true.

Tyndmyr wrote:Politifact and similar sites try, but they do get it wrong, sometimes. A lot of times, political debates are about the repercussions of future actions. Like, say, if The Affordable Care Act would decrease health care pricing or increase premiums.

I was going to go down things like the debate transcripts and organise qualifying statements into Past, Present and Future to assess them.

A statement for the Past might be that "Under my opponent's party's governance, the number of Tribbles per Klingon fell dramatically, which shows how pro-Klingon they really are!", which could easily be looked at in the cold light of known facts.A statement for the Present could be "Right now, there are several thousand Galleons stored in Gringotts that my opponent stole from the wizarding community at large." and might not be so easily proven/disproven but could he considered on balance.Whereas the Future statement "From now on, I'll try to be a Really Useful Engine!" cannot be assessed upon ultimate truth and can only be judged on past behaviour...

And thus a sliding 'aperture' of truthfulness. Less extreme significance can be placed upon apparent truths or lies for Future statements (even revisiting after-the-fact, good intentions are easily overtaken by circumstances) whilst historic claims can be far more clearly shown to be extremely false or overwhelmingly true and weasely vague statements in the middle can also be looked at criticaly regarding their selective use. In the middle, both initial and defered assessment for Present 'facts' can be made, for various kinds of useful candidate ratings (as facts and counterfacts come to light in public, as well as behind the scenes).

It would be a Great Project.

But I have a life, that doesn't include being paid to dedicate my time to this intensive a project, so I never really got started.

Politifact and similar sites try, but they do get it wrong, sometimes.

Sure. My argument is that such the practice should be widespread, not that it's easy or infallible.

Like democracy, fact-checking is more like the least worst option than some 'panacea'.

A lot of times, political debates are about the repercussions of future actions. Like, say, if The Affordable Care Act would decrease health care pricing or increase premiums.

Some statements rated as a lie turned out to be true, and conversely. In practice, neither party is really lying as such, they're just using different economic models, some of which are less accurate for the particular prediction. Which is "obvious bullshit" mostly depends on which partisan camp you're in, and thus, which models you've accepted as true.

Well, in that particular case, the bullshit that the media should be pointing out is if either side claims to have a monopoly on the truth. Their job is to point out how much more complex the situation is when one or both sides are trying to pretend the answer is easy.

However, that's not an argument for not calling out the obvious bullshit that the candidates do come out with.

For example, when the Brexit camp in the UK write on the side of a bus that we should give the £350m a week we send to the EU to our NHS, we've moved from "just using different economic models" into the realm of literal, mathematically-provable falsehood...

So, Turkey is having a referendum on wether or not to expand presidential powers today.

A lot of people, including myself, see it as a move by Erdogan to consolidate further power (i.e. become more authoritarian).

They are counting the vote now, but as it stands "yes" is winning by a slim margin. I don't exactly trust AKP in this -- they've arrested politicians campaigning for the "no" side, and they are just shady in general. I'm still not satisfied with their explaination of the coup. It seemed to come at a very opportune time for AKP, and what with all the purges they've done, and now this referendum, it seems like they're up to no good. Apparently, some people have complained that they've been given ballots without the official stamp by election officials, making those ballots potentially invalid. Yeah, there are outside observers, but I don't trust that they will be able to do anything about fraud if it occurs.

I'm worried as to the future of the Turkish state -- it seems like Erdogan has just been steadily turning himself from an elected president into a dictator.

According to the document, many "no" campaigners were arrested and/or assaulted. Also, some of their posters were banned by the government. Some of their events were cancelled by the authorities.

From what I've read in that document it doesn't seem like this referendum was particularly fair. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. The two main opposition parties have already challenged the results.

pogrmman wrote:From what I've read in that document it doesn't seem like this referendum was particularly fair. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. The two main opposition parties have already challenged the results.

It'll probably play out the way most dictators' rise to power plays out - with a lot of blood and imprisonment, scapegoating of various groups, and decimation of anyone not loyal to the party.

Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!

The referendum was pretty close so there are still a lot of opposition voters. If the referendum had been 70-30 in favor I'd agree that the elections would be a formality. In this case I think there's still hope for the opposition.